[Tomorrow's skies]

I'd say for the consumer it's too expensive to buy, but I don't it'd hurt the companies any. They just want higher profit margins.

[sunnykerr]

I'm sure you're right. Though, for the record, real food isn't expensive at all where I live, nor has it been in the parts of the United States I've visited.

You have to put a minimal level of effort into preparing it and I think that's where the major "price" is seen. Because it takes effort.

[Tomorrow's skies]

Even prepared meals used to have real ingredients, or at least much more than they do now.

I try to buy fresh, otherwise I try to pick the best of frozen/packaged. I look at every single label

Don't think I mentioned this, but apparently canned food and even pop cans have BPA. So I guess when they started banning and removing BPA products that just included some plastic..

[sunnykerr]

Well, right now the impact of BPAs on human health are still... in debate makes it sound like it's up to someone to make a decision, but I mean that the research hasn't been conclusive thus far.

It's illegal to have them in baby bottles and there's obviously some in cans, but the quick check I made to look it up seemed to indicate that it much more prevalent in cash receipts. Considering how it's absorbed easily, and how much we all buy all the time, it seems a good point of entry into the human body to me would be when purchasing something, anything.

Meanwhile:

WHO issues Europe measles warning European countries need to act now to tackle measles outbreaks, the World Health Organization warns. The WHO report says there were over 26,000 measles cases in 36 European countries from January to October 2011. Western European countries reported 83% of those cases, with 14,000 in France alone. In England and Wales, there were just under 1,000 confirmed measles cases in that period - compared with just 374 in the whole of 2010. Altogether, measles outbreaks in Europe have caused nine deaths, including six in France, and 7,288 hospitalisations. France has now launched a nationwide campaign to raise awareness about the need for MMR vaccination. Jean-Yves Grall, the Director-General for Health in France, said: "France can simply not afford to have deaths, painful and costly hospitalisations, disruptions to work and school from a completely vaccine-preventable disease." Ninety per cent of European cases were amongst adolescents and adults who had not been vaccinated or people where it was not known if they had been vaccinated or not. And measles from Europe has been linked to outbreaks in several other countries including Brazil, Canada and Australia. 'Potential danger' Zsuzsanna Jakab, WHO regional director for Europe, said: "The increase in measles in European countries reveals a serious challenge to achieving the regional measles elimination goal by 2015. "Every country in the European region must take the opportunity now to raise coverage amongst susceptible populations, improve surveillance and severely reduce measles virus circulation before the approaching measles high season." A spokeswoman for the Health Protection Agency, which covers England and Wales, said: "Anyone who missed out on MMR as a child will continue to be at risk of measles, which explains why we are continuing to see cases in a broad age range." "We are again reminding parents and young adults of the importance of immunisation. We cannot stress enough that measles is serious and in some cases it can be fatal." "Measles is a highly infectious and potentially dangerous illness which spreads very easily. Whether you stay here in the UK or travel abroad it is crucial that individuals who may be at risk are fully immunised."

Source

This is the sort of story that really angers me. I totally understand how parents know their children way more than any doctor can. I get it. I believe it. I support it. But the notion that immunization should be forestalled because of concerns that the vaccine... I don't know, gives kids autism is preposterous. And the consequences can be quite deadly, so it's doubly preposterous.

[Sea Horse]

At one time it was common for me to have a few cavity fillings every year. Root canals was something I was familiar with also, sadly.

That all changed when I removed wheat/gluten from my diet along with taking vitamin D3 and vitamin K2. Since i did those things 5 years ago, I haven't had a cavity since. My gum health is wonderful also. Overall my dentist was amazed. He has mentioned a couple times that he has never had a patient improve as much as I have. He might be a little sad also as Dr. Hill made a nice living on me and my bad teeth. We used to joke about dedicating a chair with my name on it.

Saw this doctors article the other day that had a mention about dental cavities and wheat. From my experience, I'm thinking there might be something to it.

"Upper Crust"

Upper Crust | Wheat Belly

snippet:

...Hunter gatherer humans who first began to incorporate wild einkorn into their diet experienced a downtown in health, including more dental caries, bone diseases, and probably atherosclerosis and cancer. Likewise, modern hunter gatherer cultures who do not consume wheat are spared these conditions. We also know that celiac disease is not unique to modern wheat, but has been described as early as 100 AD and many times since, meaning it likely occurred with consumption of emmer, spelt, kamut, and Triticum aestivum landraces, though the relative frequencies may have varied....

[sunnykerr]

There really might be. There seem to be many causes.

For instance, my brother has weirdly acidic saliva. So he has to have a special moutwash a couple of times a day to "whatever it is you call it that counters the aciditiy" his saliva. And, ever since he started doing that... fewer cavities by far.

On the flip side, I started getting cavities only when I got out of my teenage years. Seems the hormonal change there is what did it for me. But, as I never got them on a massive scale, I don't worry too much.

[Tomorrow's skies]

Neutralize?

I honestly think we all react to things that aren't good for us but in the process of growing up we stop registering.

[zalarcon]

It's interesting how a much better diet can do to one's overall health.

[sunnykerr]

Yes, neutralize is the word I was looking for. Amazing how not sleeping too well for a few weeks in a row will rob one's brain of its usual linguistic abilities.

Over 40% of cancers due to lifestyle, says review Nearly half of cancers diagnosed in the UK each year - over 130,000 in total - are caused by avoidable life choices including smoking, drinking and eating the wrong things, a review reveals. Tobacco is the biggest culprit, causing 23% of cases in men and 15.6% in women, says the Cancer Research UK report. Next comes a lack of fresh fruit and vegetables in men's diets, while for women it is being overweight. The report is published in the British Journal of Cancer. Its authors claim it is the most comprehensive analysis to date on the subject. Lead author Prof Max Parkin said: "Many people believe cancer is down to fate or 'in the genes' and that it is the luck of the draw whether they get it. "Looking at all the evidence, it's clear that around 40% of all cancers are caused by things we mostly have the power to change." Weighty matters For men, the best advice appears to be: stop smoking, eat more fruit and veg and cut down on how much alcohol you drink. For women, again, the reviews says the best advice is to stop smoking, but also watch your weight. Prof Parkin said: "We didn't expect to find that eating fruit and vegetables would prove to be so important in protecting men against cancer. And among women we didn't expect being overweight to be more of a risk factor than alcohol." In total, 14 lifestyle and environmental factors, such as where you live and the job you do, combine to cause 134,000 cancers in the UK each year. About 100,000 (34%) of the cancers are linked to smoking, diet, alcohol and excess weight. One in 25 of cancers is linked to a person's job, such as being exposed to chemicals or asbestos. Some risk factors are well established, such as smoking's link with lung cancer. But others are less recognised. For example, for breast cancer, nearly a 10th of the risk comes from being overweight or obese, far outweighing the impact of whether or not the woman breastfeeds or drinks alcohol. And for oesophageal or gullet cancer, half of the risk comes from eating too little fruit and veg, while only a fifth of the risk is from alcohol, the report shows. For stomach cancer, a fifth of the risk comes from having too much salt in the diet, data suggests. Some cancers, like mouth and throat cancer, are caused almost entirely by lifestyle choices. But others, like gall bladder cancer, are largely unrelated to lifestyle. The researchers base their calculations on predicted numbers of cases for 18 different types of cancer in 2010, using UK incidence figures for the 15-year period from 1993 to 2007. In men, 6.1% (9,600) of cancer cases were linked to a lack of fruit and vegetables, 4.9% (7,800) to occupation, 4.6% (7,300) to alcohol, 4.1% (6,500) to overweight and obesity and 3.5% (5,500) to excessive sun exposure and sunbeds. In women, 6.9% (10,800) were linked to overweight and obesity, 3.7% (5,800) to infections such as HPV (which causes most cases of cervical cancer), 3.6% (5,600) to excessive sun exposure and sunbeds, 3.4% (5,300) to lack of fruit and vegetables and 3.3% (5,100) to alcohol. Dr Rachel Thompson, of the World Cancer Research Fund, said the report added to the "now overwhelmingly strong evidence that our cancer risk is affected by our lifestyles". Dr Harpal Kumar, chief executive of Cancer Research UK, said leading a healthy lifestyle did not guarantee a person would not get cancer but the study showed "we can significantly stack the odds in our favour". "If there are things we can do to reduce our risk of cancer we should do as much as we possibly can," he said. Glyn Berwick, of Penny Brohn Cancer Care, which specialises in offering nutrition and exercise advice, agreed. "We know from years of experience the positive impact that changing lifetsyles can have." The president of the Royal College of Physicians, Sir Richard Thompson, said the findings were a wake-up call to the government to take stronger action on public health. "The rising incidence of preventable cancers shows that the 'carrot' approach of voluntary agreements with industry is not enough to prompt healthy behaviours, and needs to be replaced by the 'stick' approach of legislative solutions," he said The government said it was intending to begin a consultation on plain packaging by the end of this year. Diane Abbott, Shadow Public Health Minister, said: "The government is failing on all the main public health issues. "And the message from Labour, the Tory-led Public Health Committee, campaigners like Jamie Oliver and even some the government's own policy panels is clear: the government's approach to tackling lifestyle-related health problems is completely inadequate." Public Health Minister Anne Milton said: "We all know that around 23,000 cases of lung cancer could be stopped each year in England if people didn't smoke. "By making small changes we can cut our risk of serious health problems - give up smoking, watch what you drink, get more exercise and keep an eye on your weight."

Source

Thoughts?

[Tomorrow's skies]

Weird that chemicals found in every day products isn't mentioned. Chemicals commonly found in shampoos and skin creams are attributed to causing cancer if contaminated with dioxane

Or BPA, that's connected with breast cancer

Either way I'd say some of what's mentioned is common sense, and the others are missing the full picture

[Tomorrow's skies]

Access to clean water in Canada, or the lack there of.

[sunnykerr]

The link between BPAs and any form of cancer are still being debated, though.

And, yeah, we really have abandoned our Native communities. I wasn't aware it had extended to their health, but that makes a world of sense.

[Tomorrow's skies]

Just because there's debate doesn't mean it hasn't been proven. There may be some doubt, but I honestly think there's more proof than there is doubt. Corporations just buy people to spread their lies

[Barstool Prophet]

Originally Posted by sunnykerr (View Post) The link between BPAs and any form of cancer are still being debated, though. And, yeah, we really have abandoned our Native communities. I wasn't aware it had extended to their health, but that makes a world of sense.

Yeah a lot of the remote communities don't even have doctors, just nurses. Dentists that come in once a month. It's crazy.

[sunnykerr]

Well, the debate I was referencing was how there's plenty of doctors and scientists who feel the link just isn't there enough to be a bona-fine causal relationship. I don't think all of them could have been bought, to be honest. Especially considering they're spread across the world.

But what do I know?

And, yeah, the dearth of real health services on reserves is troubling. Especially those remote ones like Attawapiskwat... When you combine the low median age in that reserve, with the fact that they have supremely inadequate housing (and only the federal government is allowed to build) and then the fact that it's on the Hudson Bay, you can see how that's pretty much a recipe for a health disaster.